Quite frankly I'm doing my best to ignore all of the outrage. Some of it gets through, and the lack of logic is just startling....
Someone on a pic on the Edinburgh Spotlight FB pages, which showed the death rates for being hit at different speeds, started going on about better modern brakes (as the graphic was based on a 1979 study). But the info had nothing to do with brakes, it was all about actually just being hit 'at those speeds'. Whether a car has better brakes now or not, the physics of being hit at 30mph are the same (though arguably modern cars are now better designed for pedestrians, now if they'd had that as their argument).
The whole thing about 'why are they making us go so slowly?' appears at the same time as 'well you're lucky to get over 20mph anyway'. So if they don't think you can get over 20 anyway, erm, exactly what is the problem with the limit being at a speed at which you cannot drive?
I've heard the 'you have to concentrate more at 20mph' argument before. It seemed to be based on the fact that driving more slowly means that people are more bored. I had a 'discussion' with someone on EEN about this once, and I can't for the life of me remember what the conclusion was, but I do remember bringing up the boredom of motorways, and he was adamant that it's impossible to get bored on a long straight featureless motorway.
The thing that gets me is that my commute (as was) was around 4 miles. If I could maintain a constant 30mph that would take 8 minutes. At a constant 20mph it takes 12 minutes. So just 4 minutes of a difference, to cross half the city. what with slowing down and speeding up and lights and junctions and traffic, I reckon the difference is probably closer to 2 minutes, if not less. Seriously, people are getting so angry about losing 2 minutes of their day; when there are demonstrable safety and health and wellbeing and pollution and etc etc etc benefits to the city.
I saw one comment from the 'Say no to 20' brigade along the lines of 'other cities in the world are laughing at us'. I think they are, in places like Copenhagen and Amsterdam, but for not being stronger on this. Two cities that rank rather highly in the 'places to live' indices that are published every now and then. Even somewhere like Paris has days off and on depending on your number plate when certain vehicles can be driven into the city. London has the congestion charge, as do many many other places. Edinburgh is actually out of step with other modern, forward thinking, pleasant cities in not having anything at all controlling or curtailing the use of the car in the city.
The self-selecting argument is just laughable. The consultation was public. It was out there to be seen, to be commented on. As has been said already, calling for a public consultation now kind of misses the point that there has already been one and you were too unaware and wrapped up in your own little world to have realised, until something leaked out into your tiny little brain that there might be what you perceive to be a detrimental effect on you. Knocking Spokes, or this forum, for being a 'group' that can then mobilise seems a little, shall we say, ironic, when that FB group against the 20mph plans is... a group.... that's aiming to mobilise.
And they complain about 2500 respondents not being representative of the city (actually, I suspect that's quite a big response rate!); well they have 4000 'likes' on a FB page. I mean, c'mon, that's ticking a little button while slumped in your sofa and not having to think about a form and response to send in. And if you're arguing that 2500 (people who actively thought about something and contributed) is not representative; 4000 people is, in the grand scheme of things, not really any more representative, especially given it's just a button click.
What I really really don't get, is why people are so wedded to 30mph, on streets where people live and play and walk, that they can't see that it would make areas more pleasant, more affluent (yes, really, do some fecking research), more attractive, and safer. I've said before, so many people go on holiday abroad, and they come back with tales of lovely pedestrianised boulevards, or getting about on metros or great bus systems or (yes) trams. They fly in, they never drive a car, they get about easily to places of interest, to museums, to historical sites and galleries and football stadiums, and they actually still manage to move about the city; then they come home and for some reason see the car as the only way to possibly get from A to B. Bloody morons the lot of them (and that's why I'm staying out of debating publicly with anyone with that mindset - there's that old adage, never argue with a moron, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience).
posts
